Você está na página 1de 2

Michael Zhan

10/1/15
Midterm 1 Essays
Obergefell v. Hodges
There does exist a constitutional right for persons to enter into a
polygamous marriage; since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there exists a
constitutional right for two individuals of the same sex to marry, polygamous
marriages and even marriages to pets are allowed by extension. The
constitutional right for these types of marriages is based up on the 14th
Amendment as well as the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. An individuals
basic rights and freedoms are not to be infringed upon by the state or federal
government, for they are given the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. Ultimately, it is up to an individuals own decisions and
preferences to determine what constitutes life, liberty, and happiness. If
same-sex couples argue that the ban of same-sex marriage violates their
privileges to a long-term romantic commitment for their own benefits and
well-being, polygamous couples should be able to argue the same
standpoint. This freedom of marriage inspires and encourages freedom of
love and personal choice for everyone who intends to seek love and comfort;
however, same-sex marriages and polygamous marriages are not based nor
judged on the same legal or ethical reasoning. It can be argued that
polygamous marriages foster an unhealthy and unideal objectification of
men and women alike, creating a destructive and inappropriate environment
for children to develop in. Whereas same-sex marriage promotes freedom of
love between all genders, polygamous marriages promote the complete
derogatory mistreatment of genders.

Machado v. Papelbon
Issue: During a game between the Washington Nationals and
Baltimore Orioles, Jonathan Papelbons high fastball pitch at Manny Machado
was deemed as an intentional attempt to physically hurt or injure Machado,
resulting in a three game suspension for Papelbon by the MLB. Does
Machado have any tort claims against Papelbon and how successful is
Machado?
Rules of Law: The definition of a tort is a civil wrongdoing other than
a breach of contract. Tort claims include battery and assault. Battery is the
offensive, unwanted, and harmful touching of another without consent in
order to cause harmful damages and injuries or create apprehension within
the other party. Assault is the desire and purposeful action to cause

offensive, unwanted, or harmful touching of another without consent, given


that the assault was immediate and imminent during the incident. The
definition of negligence is a failure to provide reasonable care with harm
resulting to the other party. In order for a negligence claim to be recognized,
four elements must be met: the duty of reasonable care, was there a duty
owed, was the duty breached, and was there an actual causation linking the
result and the breach of duty. Furthermore, the type of invitee the defendant
falls under must be appropriate for a tort claim to be filed.
Application: Papelbon and Machado are both on esteemed and
nationwide recognized baseball teams; thus, both individuals have a deep
understanding of the game and its risks and elements. Some form of
contract or waiver must have been read and signed off by both Papelbon and
Machado recognizing the dangers that could be incurred in a game of
baseball; thus, Papelbon and Machado consented to potential injuries that
could be inflicted upon them by any means. Assault and battery are rendered
null and void. For negligence to occur, a duty of reasonable care, a duty
owed, a duty breached, and an actual causation linking the result and the
breach of duty must be met. For a duty of reasonable care, Machado had to
have acted as a reasonable person would under normal prudence. He acted
in an appropriate way he should have as a participant of a baseball game.
Did Papelbon owe a duty to Machado in this baseball game? As a public
invitee, Machado willingly decided to play in this baseball game with
Papelbon; Machado was not a business invitee or tenant, a licensed invitee,
or a trespasser. Thus, Papelbon owed no duty to protect Machado from any
potential source of harm and injury.
Conclusion: Machado does not have a high likelihood of success for
tort claims against Papelbon since Papelbons actions could not have been
categorized as tort or negligence.

Você também pode gostar